The Definition of Atheism According To...

[WinePusher]

The definition of atheism according to an internet debater:

Actually, EJ, the Atheist position (according to Atheists -- not Theists) is "I do not believe in gods" -- period -- full stop.

SOME Atheists (often referred to as Hard Atheists) deny the existence of "gods" but that is NOT required in Atheism -- which means "Without belief in gods."

Theists often attempt to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism; however, that is just another straw man attempt. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2&start=10

The definition of atheism according to Carl Sagan:

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_sagan#Social_concerns

The definition of atheism according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

The definition of atheism according to Dictionary.com:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t

Questions for debate:

1) What is the definition of atheism?

2) When considering the definition of atheism, should one rely on the opinions of an internet debater or the opinions of Carl Sagan, the Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary?

Theists often attempt to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism; however, that is just another straw man attempt.

3) Are Carl Sagan, the Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary 'theists' and 'theistic sources?' Are Carl Sagan, the Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary guilty of straw man attempts?

[Zzyzx]

.

Disbelief OR lack of belief implies that the two are not the same and mean different things.

EXACTLY, as many have been saying 150 posts into the thread, Atheism IS disbelief OR denial -- thus, the term decidedly does NOT require denial.

Let me ask, when one refuses to concede a point what does it indicate about them personally? I'd like to know because it appears that many nontheists in this thread will not concede the point, and according to you this tells us something personal about them? Please elaborate.

Why expect anyone to concede a point ("Atheism = denial") that has been shown over and over to be dead wrong?

Simplifying, Atheism always implies disbelief in "gods" and MAY involve denial of the existence of "gods" by some, and not by others.

[WinePusher]

Disbelief OR lack of belief implies that the two are not the same and mean different things.

EXACTLY,

Good, thank you for agreeing that disbelief and lack of belief mean two different things.

...as many have been saying 150 posts into the thread, Atheism IS disbelief OR denial -- thus, the term decidedly does NOT require denial.

I asked you to read my posts so that you could actually understand what my position is instead of attributing false positions to me. Please do so:

'I don't really have any problem with the five OED definitions you gave, I think they're all accurate but I personally see the 'denying God' one as the most accurate as it describes what modern atheists actually say and do. But, that doesn't make the other 4 definitions any less credible. The one definition I reject is the 'lack belief' one.'

'If you define atheism as 'lack of belief' then you're inaccurate, it's as simple as that. If you define atheism as rejection of belief in God, or disbelief in God, or denial of God, or any one of those definitions then you would be accurate.'

Why expect anyone to concede a point ("Atheism = denial") that has been shown over and over to be dead wrong?

According to Zzyzx "Atheism=Denial" is dead wrong. According to 5 sources it's an appropriate definition for atheism. Zzyzx, please provide evidence for your claim or retract it.

First Challenge.

[Danmark]

Your own quotes demonstrate you are wrong and persist in the error you have made all along. You continue to make this error by failing to acknowledge the use of the disjunctive. In my edit of your quotes above, I have removed the alternate definition, leaving the one you disagree with; to wit, that atheism may be defined as the "disbelief" in god or gods, as opposed to the denial of god or gods.

Danmark, I'd like to know if you if you understand where I'm coming from. Your side in this debate has been saying that the OED supports the 'lack belief' definition of atheism, and I accepted this for the past 16 pages because I trusted what you (general term) were saying.

Unfortunately, I shouldn't have trusted you and I should've checked for myself because it turns out that your claim about the OED is not correct. The actual OED website doesn't include the 'lack belief' definition. Will you admit that this is just a huge blunder on your sides part?

We can resort to several dictionaries for the definition of "disbelief," including the OED:

Why would we need to do that? Are you also uncertain about what the definition of 'disbelief' is? Taken from post 60: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Do you see the word 'or?' Do you know what the word 'or' means in this case? Disbelief OR lack of belief implies that the two are not the same and mean different things.

There, now that we've cleared that up can we get back to the egregious mistake about the OED. I believe you said it best with this little gem: Whether or not you concede the point is not a test of the point itself, but of . . . something more personal.

Let me ask, when one refuses to concede a point what does it indicate about them personally? I'd like to know because it appears that many nontheists in this thread will not concede the point, and according to you this tells us something personal about them? Please elaborate.

You've 'cleared up' nothing. You have obscured.
I don't know how I can be more definitive than to quote from the OED that atheism includes "disbelief" in God and gods and that the OED defines 'disbelief' as including 'lack of belief.' The debate is settled. As I have already written:
"disbelief," according to the OED:
"Lack of faith in something."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... /disbelief

This is in accord with my print copy of the Shorter OED
Fifth Edition [2002]:
"disbelieve: ... 2. Be a sceptic; have no faith or belief in."

This is also in accord with the definition given for "atheist:"
"1. a person who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God or gods."
[emphasis applied]
It is time to reflect upon your own phrase:

You have no other way out other than to admit that you're wrong.

Let me summarize. The OED, numerous other dictionaries and other sources all agree that atheism includes disbelief in gods and disbelief is defined as including the 'lack' of belief. Game over.

There is nothing new in your attempt to define atheism inaccurately, nor is the motive hidden.

Here's an example, in part:
'"Myth:
Lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see, if they say they have no position, by saying they lack belief, then their position is not open to attack and examination and they can quietly remain atheists.

Response:
I've written a number of articles about how religious theists, but especially Christians, try to argue against the broad definition of atheism as simply the absence of belief in gods. This myth explains why this is so important to some theists: if atheism is just the absence of belief in gods, then it's not making any claims that all atheists must defend, and therefore the only burden of proof lies with religious theists themselves.

Few theists are prepared to carry this burden, so they desperately seek out some way to shift it to atheists. One of the keys to understanding how and why this myth goes so wrong is to note the fallacy of Begging the Question: it attempts to argue that atheists should not define atheism broadly by assuming the truth of the narrow definition which religious theists would prefer. This fallacy occurs in the phrase "avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position."'
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitiono ... iefGod.htm

[WinePusher]

You completely ignored this. Why? You made the statement so you should be able to stand by it. If you can't stand by it then please, honorably retract it. Here's another chance to respond:

There, now that we've cleared that up can we get back to the egregious mistake about the OED. I believe you said it best with this little gem: Whether or not you concede the point is not a test of the point itself, but of . . . something more personal.

Let me ask, when one refuses to concede a point what does it indicate about them personally? I'd like to know because it appears that many nontheists in this thread will not concede the point, and according to you this tells us something personal about them? Please elaborate.

I don't know how I can be more definitive than to quote from the OED that atheism includes "disbelief" in God and gods and that the OED defines 'disbelief' as including 'lack of belief.' The debate is settled.

Wrong.

Oxford English Dictionary:
-Disbelief (N): The action or an act of disbelieving; mental rejection of a statement or assertion; positive unbelief.
-Disbelieve (V): Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: / a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of. (With simple obj. or obj. clause.)

I believe this is the second thing you need to retract, yes? Do you have a subscription to the OED or are you accessing it through an academic library?

Let me summarize. The OED, numerous other dictionaries and other sources all agree that atheism includes disbelief in gods and disbelief is defined as including the 'lack' of belief. Game over.

Disbelief is not the same as lack of belief. Zzyzx apparently agrees with this, so does Post 60, so does the OED. You've been wrong multiple times in this thread, first with your incorrect analogy, then with your misrepresentation of the OED and now with your definition of 'disbelief.' The debate was over once you and others chose to provide false definitions from the official OED. As you said, accept it or bow out gracefully.

[Jashwell]

"Not to believe"
Are you suggesting that anyone who doesn't believe in god is an atheist?
Argument ending #1.

"Positive unbelief"
Includes explicit weak atheism - what you call agnosticism.
Argument ending #2.

As for the having "or lack of belief"/"or lack of faith" in the definition of atheism.
Argument ending #3.

Seriously, I've been saying for probably 10 pages that all I mainly care about arguing for is that you don't have to believe in the non existence of gods to be an atheist. You're the one that decided that our definition was inadequate, you need to show that only your definition is given. This also does not bode well for your view on agnosticism - do you now accept that agnosticism and atheism to you have the same meaning?

[Artie]

Disbelief is not the same as lack of belief.

Theism: The belief that god(s) exist
Weak atheism: Absence of belief that god(s) exist, absence of belief that god(s) do not exist
Strong atheism: Belief that god(s) do not exist

Depending on which dictionary you quote disbelief can mean number two or three or both.

[Star]

I went to the Oxford link Danmark posted and it does in fact provide a definition of "disbelief" as being a "lack of faith." I saw it with my own eyes.

But WinePusher says, "Wrong."

I've never seen so many category errors and asinine arguments from incredulity in all my life.

[Star]

Here's a c&p from www.lackofbelief.com which explains the problem well.

Understanding a Lack of Belief

The default atheist position, which is held by the great majority of the atheist community, is that atheism is a "lack of belief". Obviously, this means that atheists do not have a belief in any gods. However, this does not imply that atheists believe no gods exist.

For many, this can sound very confusing. If someone told you that they read Santa Claus was coming to town, there are a few relevant positions to take:

1. I believe Santa is coming to town
2. I'm unconvinced that Santa is coming to town
3. That's wrong. I believe Santa is not coming to town

Both the first and third positions express explicit beliefs. However, the second position did not accept the person's belief that Santa was coming to town, thus lacks a positive belief about Santa coming to town. While the second position lacks a positive belief about Santa's arrival, it also lacks the opposite belief that Santa is not coming to town. A common response from someone taking the second position might be, "Don't believe everything you read! Maybe he's coming, but I haven't seen anything that would make me believe so." This is quite different from an example response from someone taking the third position, "I don't care what you read! Santa has never come to town before, and I certainly do not believe Santa is coming to town now."

This distinction is amplified by claims of knowledge. The equivalent claims to knowledge of the positions above make the issue a bit more clear:

1. I KNOW that Santa is coming to town
2. I don't know that Santa is coming to town
3. I KNOW that Santa is NOT coming to town

Now, both the first and third positions are making claims to knowledge. Atheists generally consider either of these claims, with respect to the existence of gods, intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost during discussions between theists and atheists because most of the conversations consist of colloquial (informal) language as opposed to a technical, philosophical discussion which recognizes the epistemological differences between knowledge and belief.

This often leads theists, which frequently are making a positive claim to knowledge about the existence of gods, to ask a question in which an atheist replies coloquially, "There are no gods." Understandably, from the perspective of the theist, the atheist has just made a claim to knowledge which can then be followed by a theist's request for proof. However, because the atheist's true meaning was in the context of belief and not knowledge, a misunderstanding is created. When the atheist states that the burden of proof is on the theist and the atheist doesn't have anything to prove, the conversation declines. Because of the atheist's miscommunication, the theist now feels justified in their belief that the atheist is simply making claims to knowledge on faith, just like he/she is. On the other hand, the atheist gets increasingly frustrated that the theist does not understand where the burden of proof lies and feels justified in their belief that the theist is simply avoiding the question because they have no proof.

If some of this sounds like agnosticism to you, that is because it is. Agnosticism deals specifically with the realm of knowledge, whereas atheism is in the realm of belief. In this context, gnostic (not to be confused with the Gnosticism associated with early Christianity) simply means "with knowledge", while agnostic means "without knowledge". This lack of knowledge can either refer to the absence of the knowledge which is available, or to the notion that it is not possible to possess the knowledge. Since a label of gnostic or agnostic usually tells nothing about what a person believes, only if they have an unspecified knowledge, it is of limited use. Instead, labels related to belief (theism and atheism) are more common. Though the two types of labels are most descriptive when paired, the knowledge-based label is often absent. This is often either due to a poor understanding of the differences between the four labels, or because the belief-based label implies it as its default state.

Since generally atheists believe people are born without knowledge of the concept of gods, thus do not have an innate belief in any gods, the default atheist position is an agnostic-atheist. If an atheist then encounters a god belief and does not accept it, the person remains an agnostic-atheist. However, if the person encounters the god belief and then claims to have knowledge that the god truly does not exist, the person is a gnostic-atheist. Most gnostic-atheists are those that have either not seriously considered their position, have a poor understanding of the topic, are being intellectually dishonest, or are really agnostic-atheists. The last type understand the nuances of the issue but claim their knowledge is sufficient to warrant the gnostic label if they wish to use it, unless pressed with a strict definition of knowledge. This last group is often the cause of much of the confusion, since they commonly use the colloquial understanding of knowledge when making statements about the existence of gods. Unfortunately, the gnostic-atheist label is rarely used by gnostic-atheists due to an ironic lack of knowledge. Instead, these people ambiguously use the atheist label, which implies the default agnostic-atheism. This creates additional confusion as to what atheism is. Additionally, more confusion is introduced when the agnostic term is often mistakenly used instead of [agnostic-]atheist since the person intends to mean while they do not have the knowledge of the true answer, they do not hold a positive god belief either.

While the line is relatively clear-cut in terms of the default atheist position, the theistic view of the default theist position varies greatly. Even within the Abrahamic religions, there is a great deal of diversity of thought regarding innate knowledge and belief. A very common theistic view that is also most apt for confusion during discussions with atheists is that a person is born with the belief/knowledge/both of their god(s), with this claim to knowledge instead being supported by the concept of faith. Not only does this understanding of knowledge differ from the atheist, but it places the default theistic position to be gnostic-theism, the opposite of the default atheist position. The result is the theist not only using a different understanding of what constitutes knowledge than the atheist, but also assuming the atheist is coming from the gnostic perspective. Due to this misunderstanding, many conversations do not get past this point.

Four common statements can illustrate each of these perspectives:

1. Gnostic-Theist/Theist: I KNOW there is a god.
2. Agnostic-Theist: I won't pretend to KNOW, but I BELIEVE there is a god.
3. Agnostic-Atheist/Atheist: I won't pretend to KNOW there isn't a god, but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to accept any god belief [, so I lack a belief in gods].
4. Gnostic-Atheist: I KNOW there are NO gods.

You are now equipped with a good understanding of what an atheist is (and is not). During discussions, be sure that everyone is on the same page in terms of which category each person belongs in -- and even which definition of "god" will be used. If your arguments are not even directed at what the person actually believes/doesn't believe, you're wasting your time. [Gnostic-]theists should know that if they want to debate with an [agnostic-]atheist, asking the atheist to prove that gods don't exist does nothing but make the theist look clueless. This also holds for gnostic-atheists asking agnostic-theists to prove gods exist -- though I hope by this point in the reading, the gnostic-atheists would no longer consider themselves gnostic.

Note to theists: People that actually believe that god(s) exist but say they do not follow them because they hate the god(s) are NOT atheists, they are simply theists that are angry with their god(s). This is also one of the definitions of "anti-theism". I find that often some theists actually refuse to believe that an atheist does not accept that a particular god exists. If you are one of these people, please try never to be guilty of this again. If you really want to "reach" the person, attempt to show evidence why the atheist should believe that the god exists instead of acting as though you know more about what the person thinks than what they do.

[Star]

1. I BELIEVE that Santa is coming to town (theists)
2. I don't believe that Santa is coming to town (soft atheists)
3. I BELIEVE that Santa is NOT coming to town (hard atheists)

Anyone who doesn't understand this must also not understand the difference between "believing" and "not believing."

1. I KNOW that Santa is coming to town (gnostic)
2. I don't know that Santa is coming to town (agnostic)
3. I KNOW that Santa is NOT coming to town (gnostic)

Anyone who doesn't understand this must also not understand the difference between "knowing" and "not knowing."

And anyone who doesn't understand why these two can't be combined into one must also not understand the difference between "knowledge" and "belief."

So I don't think there's anything more to say.

[Zzyzx]

.

According to Zzyzx "Atheism=Denial" is dead wrong. According to 5 sources it's an appropriate definition for atheism. Zzyzx, please provide evidence for your claim or retract it.

First Challenge.

The "challenge" has been met using your own five references. See post 156 this thread.

Good, thank you for agreeing that disbelief and lack of belief mean two different things.

Disbelief: the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

Lack (of belief): Deficiency or absence

Thus, the two terms are related by not synonymous. However, that does nothing to bolster your "argument."

What negates your "argument" is that disbelief and lack of belief (as defined) do not equal denial which is defined as: "to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true" (or specifically in this case that gods do not exist)

Something that may help everyone interested to understand why Theists often attempt to inject their own definition of Atheism (i.e., play word games):

Myth:

Lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see, if they say they have no position, by saying they lack belief, then their position is not open to attack and examination and they can quietly remain atheists.

Response:

I've written a number of articles about how religious theists, but especially Christians, try to argue against the broad definition of atheism as simply the absence of belief in gods. This myth explains why this is so important to some theists: if atheism is just the absence of belief in gods, then it's not making any claims that all atheists must defend, and therefore the only burden of proof lies with religious theists themselves.

Few theists are prepared to carry this burden, so they desperately seek out some way to shift it to atheists. One of the keys to understanding how and why this myth goes so wrong is to note the fallacy of Begging the Question: it attempts to argue that atheists should not define atheism broadly by assuming the truth of the narrow definition which religious theists would prefer. This fallacy occurs in the phrase "avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position."

The "problems" in the "atheistic position" are those which religious theists attribute to a narrow definition of atheism which they find convenient to use. The idea that this narrow definition is the most appropriate one is, however, precisely the issue being debated. It is not legitimate to argue that something is wrong by assuming that the alternative which you favor is correct. Doing so only indicates that one probably doesn't have any valid arguments to offer and is thus just grasping at straws in an attempt to come up with something to say.

It's true that with the broad definition of atheism, there is little to attack " but why are religious theists so eager to have something to attack? Rather than seeking out some opposition to attack, they should focus on defending, supporting, and justifying their own assertions. The burden of proof, or at least the burden of support if there is nothing to prove, lies with whomever is making the positive claim. In context of atheism and theism, this burden of proof lies primarily or entirely with the theist because this is the person who is claiming that at least one of some sort of being they call a god exists.

Atheists are simply those who do not accept the truth of this claim " they may deny it out right, they may find it too vague or incomprehensible to evaluate properly, they may be waiting to hear support for the claim, or they may simply not have heard about it yet. This is a broad and diverse category and there is no particular counter-claim made by all atheists. As someone who doesn't agree with the theist, the atheist doesn't have any particular position, claim, or belief to defend. It's the theist who has something to defend, and if they didn't want to be put in such a position they should have refrained from making a claim in the first place.
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitiono ... iefGod.htm

I thank all participants in this thread for helping demonstrate the thinking and reasoning (and style of debate) involved in their position (theistic or non-theistic).